FAQs

Although single grants can make a difference, funders are more likely to achieve greater impact by aligning their efforts toward a significant positive effect. It is the difference between a funder that happens to make a grant with impact and a funder known for impact due to the strategic and intentional pursuit of it.

Funders known for impact typically outline a clear plan to achieve particular goals and intentionally apply their many assets (e.g., dollars, influence, reputation, time) according to the plan and then revise and improve the plan as needed. Whether you make small grants or big ones, moving the needle typically requires multiple grants and multiple non-grant activities for an extended period.

Successful businesses focus; funders that focus see results too. Businesses choose a market niche based on the biggest bang for the buck, and funders can benefit from applying the same logic to their grantmaking.

A focus directs your time wisely. Donors, board members and staff have limited time; use it wisely by focusing their efforts. A focus allows them to know issues and grantees more intimately and bring to bear their knowledge, reputations, and influence—all of which are equally, if not more, powerful than the grant dollars.

A focus allows donors, trustees and staff to communicate more effectively. A focus will help you to communicate what you do and why to current and potential grantees, fellow funders, elected officials, and others interested in your work. Nonprofits, in particular, benefit when funders are clear about their priorities, because they spend less time applying for grants from entities that have no interest in their work.

A focus provides a framework for decision making. With a focus in hand, many other decisions about governance, grantmaking, administration, and investments fall into place.

A focus leads to fulfillment. When seasoned philanthropists give advice to newcomers, they repeatedly share the following tip: Focus your giving. Not only is the work less overwhelming with clear boundaries in play, but everyone is more fulfilled when they know where to look for the effects of their work.

Even though donors and boards may agree that there are good reasons to focus their giving, there may be additional hurdles to clear before all the decision makers are willing to define a focus for the funding. To move the conversation forward, be sure to clarify the following:

You can agree on a focus. Decision makers may have strong and opposing opinions, but consensus is not impossible. Commonality can often be found by shifting the discussion away from personal interests or particular grantees to instead focus on values. You’ll be surprised by the degree to which integrity, opportunity, compassion, and other values can create common ground—and at a core level that makes consensus possible.

You can accommodate the donors and board members with other interests. Focusing your funding does not preclude you from setting aside a small portion of your annual giving for discretionary grants. In fact, many funders allow key decision makers including staff to direct a portion of annual giving to organizations of their choice. In addition, try other ways to engage the leadership: putting their talents and technical skills to use, engaging them in site visits or proposal review, or encouraging them to play significant roles in other parts of the planning process.

A focus does not prevent you from being responsive. If you have historically given to just about anyone who asked, focusing will indeed be a significant change—and one that feels less responsive to certain causes. But keep in mind: You can be highly responsive to community needs by learning about the most critical ones and focusing your efforts to address them. You can also set aside a small portion of money to respond to emergencies, if that is important to you.

You’re not limited to a single focus. In fact, many funders have more than one focus. Just be sure that your assets, time, and energy are sufficient to achieve impact in more than one area.

You can experiment with focus. If you’re feeling tentative, try applying only a small portion of your assets in a focused manner. Of course, the benefits of a focus will only be seen if the key decision makers and staff direct their time and energy accordingly.

You can shift from unfocused to focused over time. Even if you decide to focus your giving, you can make the shift over a period of several years to give grantees time to find new funding sources. Using a small portion of your endowment for discretionary grants can also make the shift more palatable to key decision makers who might be less passionate about the chosen focus.

Funders can settle on a focus in many different ways. There is no one right way, and many people use a combination of the methods on the following pages to inform their final decisions. For example, you might choose a focus that respects the donor’s wishes and also incorporates the values and passions of current decision makers. See below for various ways to find commonality among your leadership:

Your passions

Some funders develop a focus built on common passions. Because passions are often based on emotional connections, the following questions can help to uncover them:

About whom or what do you care deeply?

What excites you or brings you the greatest joy?

What angers you or breaks your heart in our community, our society, or our world?

What do you believe drives change?

What kind of future do you aspire to help create?

Has an event significantly shaped who you are or what you believe?

Common values

Even individuals with outwardly polarized views can hold similar values, and, once found, they can lead to a unifying focus.
Uncover shared values by asking questions such as:

What is critical for an individual to become a productive member of society?

What was key to your becoming the successful and productive person you are today?

What values guide your life choices?

In addition, 21/64, a nonprofit consulting group specializing in next generation and multigenerational strategic philanthropy, offers a handy deck of Motivational Values Cards, each with a value (e.g., justice, family) written on it. Individuals can prioritize the cards according to what motivates their philanthropy, then discuss their rankings with others in their group.

Critical community needs

Some funders want to focus on a particular community but find that interests among decision makers are still too widespread. In these cases, it can be helpful to consider the community’s critical needs. Although people may have their own—often well-informed—visions for a community, it can also be helpful to hear from the community about its needs. With the community’s voice in hand, it is often easier to find commonality and craft a focus that also incorporates the interests, strengths, and skills of the entire group.

Donor legacy

Living donors have great freedom in being able to give to their specific interests. If, however, there is an interest in engaging others in their philanthropy, while they are living or afterwards, it is helpful to consider how narrowly donor intent will be defined. Some donors feel strongly that the giving should continue in line with their stated interests; others are open to balancing that with the interests of other decision makers. Commonality between these interests can often be found by looking at the underlying values of donor intent and then crafting a focus based on those values.

Meaningful grants

Funders often uncover a focus by reviewing past grants. Look for grants that addressed a particularly meaningful cause, stood out because of impressive results, or made you especially proud.

A single strategy

Some funders find focus through a single but powerful strategy. This approach allows you to gain expertise that can be leveraged across issue areas. Capacity building is one such strategy used by funders with few or no staff.

Populations of interest

Think about the populations that interest you. For example, you may want to focus on the elderly or children.

Your mission statement

If you have a formal mission statement, you might want to start by reviewing that. Although a mission statement may be specific—for example, specifying an interest in education, arts, and the environment—it may still lack focus. Each funder must answer this question: Can we be smart, thoughtful, and effective in funding several areas, or are we wise to narrow our interests to something more manageable?

A mission statement or purpose statement should encompass your focus, if not specify your focus. Many private foundations choose to keep their mission statements broad to allow for flexibility in the focus areas over time. Other foundations have so firmly established a focus for their giving that it makes sense to be specific.

It’s best to keep your mission statement succinct—just a sentence or two at the most. A mission statement’s power is in its simplicity, or its ability to be communicated easily.

Whether you choose to keep your mission statement broad or make it specific, it is important that you communicate your focus both internally and externally. Keeping your purpose or focus front and center will help deflect funding requests outside your focus, guide decisions about proposals, and make it easier for those within your focus to find you. In addition, it can be the foundation of all your decisions: decisions, from the strategies you choose, to the financial investments you make, to the individuals you engage in your work.

Once you know the area of focus, you’ll want to start thinking about your specific interests, strengths, and limitations, as well as the opportunities and challenges within your particular focus area. It will take some time and energy to gather this information from the field, but gaining knowledge will enable you to be more effective.

As we all know, it takes more than a plan to get to impact. Funders find they can maximize their impact by defining a clear purpose, taking time to learn about that specific field, developing a plan to achieve success, implementing according to the plan, evaluating their work, and using those evaluation results and other learning in the next round of planning and implementation. Achieving greater impact looks something like this.

If you have little clarity about what you’re trying to achieve, not only are you at risk of achieving little, but also likely to miss out on having the satisfaction of knowing you’ve achieved something meaningful.

Planning is the process of establishing goals, policies, and procedures for a social or economic enterprise. To achieve success, funders must establish clear goals, devise a road map to reach the goals, and organize themselves to follow the road map effectively. Because funders tend to work through others to achieve the impact they desire, they must also incorporate the work of their grantees and partners.

Planning helps turn a vision into reality. Some funders know what they want to accomplish, but knowing is just a first step. To reduce homelessness, help youngsters to read at grade level, or clean up the Chesapeake Bay, for example, you also need a plan for action—especially because money alone is not enough to guarantee impact.

Planning saves money. Because most grantmakers’ assets pale in comparison to the enormity of social problems, it is critical that you explore how to make the most of your giving.

Planning saves time. Taking time to develop a thoughtful plan will save significant time and effort down the road.

Planning can be done well at a low cost. Although some funders hire consultants to help with planning, this primer aims to give funders with few or no staff the tools and confidence to engage in a meaningful and manageable planning process on their own. If you are willing to dedicate the time, you can make great strides with minimal dollars.

Planning tells you where to start and how to adjust along the way. Rather than producing a static plan that is outdated before it is completed, we encourage you to engage in a type of planning that allows you to adjust the plan over time as you learn more about your field, expand your skills or interests, or engage future generations. It also helps you make thoughtful decisions along the way.

Planning helps you learn. Throughout a planning process, funders tend to identify what they know, what they thought they knew, and what they still need to know about themselves, their areas of interest, and their opportunities to make a difference.

There are various methods for developing a strategy, but it starts with having clarity about what you want to actually accomplish. Defining a focus will help to guide you, but most fields have multiple avenues for making change, each which will have a different end result. Once you have decided upon the big picture of what you’d like to accomplish, you can then ask the simple but deep questions of “what must happen before that change can occur?” This chain of questioning helps to tease out the various strategies that one can pursue to make change, as well as the various roles that nonprofits play. In addition, it encourages you to consider the multiple assets you can employ to make change (e.g. field educator, convener). It is highly unlikely you’ll be able to craft your plan at one sitting, as each level of questioning requires additional gathering of knowledge.

In the end, by moving backward from your focus to your strategies, you’ve essentially created an if/then statement about the way you will work to achieve your intended impact. That is, if you undertake the identified strategies, then it will put into motion a sequence of events that will result in your intended impact. This if/then statement is called a theory of change.

Although your road map or theory of change is well grounded and a critical step in working more intentionally, it is still just a plan. In almost all cases, you’ll need to make some adjustments as you implement the strategies and learn more about your field or community. In fact, if a theory of change is developed and seen as a rigid plan, it can actually limit your impact. A theory of change should be seen as starting point, or a stake in the ground, that will necessarily need to be moved as you learn more and more.

Once you have clarity about what you want to achieve and your roadmap for getting there, you’ll want to create alignment with your other operations. The following gives simple examples of questions you’ll want to ask in each area:

Governance: e.g. Do we have the right people helping us make decisions to accomplish our new direction?

Tax & legal: e.g. Do we need to change our bylaws, grant agreements, or learn more about legal compliance in a new grantmaking area?

Investments: e.g. Do we want to invest in a way that supports our mission?

Administration: e.g. Are we staffed appropriately considering new strategies?

Tear Sheets

Engaging the Unusual Suspects

by
Matrix Admin
| Oct 07, 2013

Funders passionate about change in their communities often realize that their efforts are not enough. Engaging others—particularly those beyond the usual suspects—can be a next step to achieving greater impact.

What does it take to engage others? A group of Exponent Philanthropy members came together to explore the answers.

They began with this working definition of engagement: the process by which a funder identifies, reaches, and involves external stakeholders in efforts to advance its mission. And they defined unusual suspects as the people, organizations, networks, and systems not aligned with your goals but able to multiply your impact if an alignment or partnership were created.

For example, Exponent Philanthropy member Janis Reichmann of the Hau’oli Mau Loa Foundation has spent the past several years working in a close partnership with 10 nonprofits to bring hope to some of Hawaii’s most disenfranchised youth.

“The approaches used by our partners are reaching children who were previously very difficult to engage and challenged by typical classroom teaching,” says Reischmann. “Although we have been hesitant to engage with the school system given the many demands already on them and the complexity involved in working within a school system, we see real potential for expanding the success seen by our partners if we do.”

Likewise, The Fledgling Fund, an Exponent Philanthropy member foundation driven by the passionate belief that films can inspire a better world, is a proponent of extending its successes more broadly. Executive Director Sheila Leddy and her colleagues are compelled to go beyond the usual suspects to other funders who may not typically fund media, as well as to advocates and policymakers, to help them tap into the power of film. For example, for the past couple years, Fledgling has partnered with the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation to support outreach and audience engagement activities for film projects that support the Blank Foundation’s program interests.

Methods of Engagement

Our group of member foundations explored four categories of engagement.

One on one—The funder focuses on individual relationship building and influence through strategies such as:

Meeting with another funder to champion a particular grantee or strategy

Reaching out to a nonprofit leader to share best practices in the field

Talking with community leaders or elected officials about the impact of your work

One to many—The funder engages larger groups, or “pushes” information to others through strategies such as:

Creating a request for proposals that identifies a preferred strategy and priority actions

Commissioning research and disseminating the findings

Funding a publication to share good practices in one field with another

Many to one—The funder creates ways for others to reach the foundation, or “pulls” information from others through strategies such as:

Engaging field experts on a grantmaking committee

Convening grantees to learn about challenges and potential solutions

Hosting a chat room to generate discussion about an issue and identify ways the issue is framed among stakeholders

Many to many—The funder joins and informs group conversations and group efforts through strategies such as:

Funding the development of a shared vision across sectors

Using film as a call to action for diverse groups of stakeholders

Collaborating with other funders to help strengthen a field

Funders are typically most comfortable in one-on-one and one-to-many roles, but there is recognition among longtime practitioners that the many-to-many method may be the most promising and underdeveloped way of engaging others.

Good Engagement Practices

Most funders acknowledge that success in engaging others takes more than just understanding the previous strategies. It also takes determination, practical skills, and an open, adaptive mindset. Our group of funders puts it this way:

Successful engagement takes guts and grit. There are reasons funders don’t often engage the unusual suspects. It is likely to call on you to deliberately and persistently venture beyond your comfort zone. It might mean reaching out to people over and over who don’t know you—and therefore don’t return your calls. It might mean spending more time out of the office than you’re used to, in conversations with potential partners that may lead to detours or dead ends. It might mean taking a year or two to find the right partnerships, not “producing” much early on. And it might mean shifting your strategy midstream for the sake of a larger goal.

Successful engagement starts with conversation. People who effectively engage the unusual suspects often approach it as an evolving conversation. According to consultant Mark Sedway, who directed the Philanthropy Awareness Initiative that worked from 2005—2012 to help foundations and philanthropy associations improve outreach to influential Americans, collaborative inquiry can be an essential, sometimes the essential, ingredient to successful engagement.

“If you want to engage people on an issue, start by asking them what they think about it,” he says. “It’s a simple but effective process. Segment the groups of people you want to reach. Then name names—a list of, say, the 50 people you really want to engage. Then interview them. What do they think about an issue? How could you work together?”

A conversation strategy like this can often be more effective and more comfortable for funders than a campaign strategy, which may move you beyond your comfort zone too quickly.

Successful engagement takes adaptation. The steps to effective engagement are similar to the small moves made during a chess match. The best chess players modify their provisional plans in response to the other player. Likewise, effective engagement requires funders to make many small moves along the way, shifting and adapting as potential partners establish their positions. It may also call on funders to give up some of their pieces (i.e., their control) to achieve a greater goal.

“In my experience,” says Exponent Philanthropy member Suzanne Hammer of The Pellish Foundation, “funders who succeed in engagement aren’t afraid of hearing no. They don’t take it personally and understand that being flexible and creative is the path to success.”

Engagement Step by Step

So what might the process of engaging the unusual suspects look like? We adapted a checklist developed by Mark Sedway for Exponent Philanthropy’s 2012 National Conference.

What is the issue around which we want to engage others? Why do we care about it, and why should they?

What outcomes do we want to see? Why is engaging others critical?

Whose thinking do we want to influence? What questions can we ask to better understand how they frame the issues and position themselves in the effort toward change?

What are the common points of interest? What small steps can we take to further build trust andmcommonality?

What types of engagement approaches are likely to be successful? What resources are needed and which are we willing to bring to the table? If we invest in these approaches, what may we have to give up?

Leave a comment

Articles

Engaging the Unusual Suspects

by
Matrix Admin
| Oct 07, 2013

Funders passionate about change in their communities often realize that their efforts are not enough. Engaging others—particularly those beyond the usual suspects—can be a next step to achieving greater impact.

What does it take to engage others? A group of Exponent Philanthropy members came together to explore the answers.

They began with this working definition of engagement: the process by which a funder identifies, reaches, and involves external stakeholders in efforts to advance its mission. And they defined unusual suspects as the people, organizations, networks, and systems not aligned with your goals but able to multiply your impact if an alignment or partnership were created.

For example, Exponent Philanthropy member Janis Reichmann of the Hau’oli Mau Loa Foundation has spent the past several years working in a close partnership with 10 nonprofits to bring hope to some of Hawaii’s most disenfranchised youth.

“The approaches used by our partners are reaching children who were previously very difficult to engage and challenged by typical classroom teaching,” says Reischmann. “Although we have been hesitant to engage with the school system given the many demands already on them and the complexity involved in working within a school system, we see real potential for expanding the success seen by our partners if we do.”

Likewise, The Fledgling Fund, an Exponent Philanthropy member foundation driven by the passionate belief that films can inspire a better world, is a proponent of extending its successes more broadly. Executive Director Sheila Leddy and her colleagues are compelled to go beyond the usual suspects to other funders who may not typically fund media, as well as to advocates and policymakers, to help them tap into the power of film. For example, for the past couple years, Fledgling has partnered with the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation to support outreach and audience engagement activities for film projects that support the Blank Foundation’s program interests.

Methods of Engagement

Our group of member foundations explored four categories of engagement.

One on one—The funder focuses on individual relationship building and influence through strategies such as:

Meeting with another funder to champion a particular grantee or strategy

Reaching out to a nonprofit leader to share best practices in the field

Talking with community leaders or elected officials about the impact of your work

One to many—The funder engages larger groups, or “pushes” information to others through strategies such as:

Creating a request for proposals that identifies a preferred strategy and priority actions

Commissioning research and disseminating the findings

Funding a publication to share good practices in one field with another

Many to one—The funder creates ways for others to reach the foundation, or “pulls” information from others through strategies such as:

Engaging field experts on a grantmaking committee

Convening grantees to learn about challenges and potential solutions

Hosting a chat room to generate discussion about an issue and identify ways the issue is framed among stakeholders

Many to many—The funder joins and informs group conversations and group efforts through strategies such as:

Funding the development of a shared vision across sectors

Using film as a call to action for diverse groups of stakeholders

Collaborating with other funders to help strengthen a field

Funders are typically most comfortable in one-on-one and one-to-many roles, but there is recognition among longtime practitioners that the many-to-many method may be the most promising and underdeveloped way of engaging others.

Good Engagement Practices

Most funders acknowledge that success in engaging others takes more than just understanding the previous strategies. It also takes determination, practical skills, and an open, adaptive mindset. Our group of funders puts it this way:

Successful engagement takes guts and grit. There are reasons funders don’t often engage the unusual suspects. It is likely to call on you to deliberately and persistently venture beyond your comfort zone. It might mean reaching out to people over and over who don’t know you—and therefore don’t return your calls. It might mean spending more time out of the office than you’re used to, in conversations with potential partners that may lead to detours or dead ends. It might mean taking a year or two to find the right partnerships, not “producing” much early on. And it might mean shifting your strategy midstream for the sake of a larger goal.

Successful engagement starts with conversation. People who effectively engage the unusual suspects often approach it as an evolving conversation. According to consultant Mark Sedway, who directed the Philanthropy Awareness Initiative that worked from 2005—2012 to help foundations and philanthropy associations improve outreach to influential Americans, collaborative inquiry can be an essential, sometimes the essential, ingredient to successful engagement.

“If you want to engage people on an issue, start by asking them what they think about it,” he says. “It’s a simple but effective process. Segment the groups of people you want to reach. Then name names—a list of, say, the 50 people you really want to engage. Then interview them. What do they think about an issue? How could you work together?”

A conversation strategy like this can often be more effective and more comfortable for funders than a campaign strategy, which may move you beyond your comfort zone too quickly.

Successful engagement takes adaptation. The steps to effective engagement are similar to the small moves made during a chess match. The best chess players modify their provisional plans in response to the other player. Likewise, effective engagement requires funders to make many small moves along the way, shifting and adapting as potential partners establish their positions. It may also call on funders to give up some of their pieces (i.e., their control) to achieve a greater goal.

“In my experience,” says Exponent Philanthropy member Suzanne Hammer of The Pellish Foundation, “funders who succeed in engagement aren’t afraid of hearing no. They don’t take it personally and understand that being flexible and creative is the path to success.”

Engagement Step by Step

So what might the process of engaging the unusual suspects look like? We adapted a checklist developed by Mark Sedway for Exponent Philanthropy’s 2012 National Conference.

What is the issue around which we want to engage others? Why do we care about it, and why should they?

What outcomes do we want to see? Why is engaging others critical?

Whose thinking do we want to influence? What questions can we ask to better understand how they frame the issues and position themselves in the effort toward change?

What are the common points of interest? What small steps can we take to further build trust andmcommonality?

What types of engagement approaches are likely to be successful? What resources are needed and which are we willing to bring to the table? If we invest in these approaches, what may we have to give up?

Leave a comment

Samples

Engaging the Unusual Suspects

by
Matrix Admin
| Oct 07, 2013

Funders passionate about change in their communities often realize that their efforts are not enough. Engaging others—particularly those beyond the usual suspects—can be a next step to achieving greater impact.

What does it take to engage others? A group of Exponent Philanthropy members came together to explore the answers.

They began with this working definition of engagement: the process by which a funder identifies, reaches, and involves external stakeholders in efforts to advance its mission. And they defined unusual suspects as the people, organizations, networks, and systems not aligned with your goals but able to multiply your impact if an alignment or partnership were created.

For example, Exponent Philanthropy member Janis Reichmann of the Hau’oli Mau Loa Foundation has spent the past several years working in a close partnership with 10 nonprofits to bring hope to some of Hawaii’s most disenfranchised youth.

“The approaches used by our partners are reaching children who were previously very difficult to engage and challenged by typical classroom teaching,” says Reischmann. “Although we have been hesitant to engage with the school system given the many demands already on them and the complexity involved in working within a school system, we see real potential for expanding the success seen by our partners if we do.”

Likewise, The Fledgling Fund, an Exponent Philanthropy member foundation driven by the passionate belief that films can inspire a better world, is a proponent of extending its successes more broadly. Executive Director Sheila Leddy and her colleagues are compelled to go beyond the usual suspects to other funders who may not typically fund media, as well as to advocates and policymakers, to help them tap into the power of film. For example, for the past couple years, Fledgling has partnered with the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation to support outreach and audience engagement activities for film projects that support the Blank Foundation’s program interests.

Methods of Engagement

Our group of member foundations explored four categories of engagement.

One on one—The funder focuses on individual relationship building and influence through strategies such as:

Meeting with another funder to champion a particular grantee or strategy

Reaching out to a nonprofit leader to share best practices in the field

Talking with community leaders or elected officials about the impact of your work

One to many—The funder engages larger groups, or “pushes” information to others through strategies such as:

Creating a request for proposals that identifies a preferred strategy and priority actions

Commissioning research and disseminating the findings

Funding a publication to share good practices in one field with another

Many to one—The funder creates ways for others to reach the foundation, or “pulls” information from others through strategies such as:

Engaging field experts on a grantmaking committee

Convening grantees to learn about challenges and potential solutions

Hosting a chat room to generate discussion about an issue and identify ways the issue is framed among stakeholders

Many to many—The funder joins and informs group conversations and group efforts through strategies such as:

Funding the development of a shared vision across sectors

Using film as a call to action for diverse groups of stakeholders

Collaborating with other funders to help strengthen a field

Funders are typically most comfortable in one-on-one and one-to-many roles, but there is recognition among longtime practitioners that the many-to-many method may be the most promising and underdeveloped way of engaging others.

Good Engagement Practices

Most funders acknowledge that success in engaging others takes more than just understanding the previous strategies. It also takes determination, practical skills, and an open, adaptive mindset. Our group of funders puts it this way:

Successful engagement takes guts and grit. There are reasons funders don’t often engage the unusual suspects. It is likely to call on you to deliberately and persistently venture beyond your comfort zone. It might mean reaching out to people over and over who don’t know you—and therefore don’t return your calls. It might mean spending more time out of the office than you’re used to, in conversations with potential partners that may lead to detours or dead ends. It might mean taking a year or two to find the right partnerships, not “producing” much early on. And it might mean shifting your strategy midstream for the sake of a larger goal.

Successful engagement starts with conversation. People who effectively engage the unusual suspects often approach it as an evolving conversation. According to consultant Mark Sedway, who directed the Philanthropy Awareness Initiative that worked from 2005—2012 to help foundations and philanthropy associations improve outreach to influential Americans, collaborative inquiry can be an essential, sometimes the essential, ingredient to successful engagement.

“If you want to engage people on an issue, start by asking them what they think about it,” he says. “It’s a simple but effective process. Segment the groups of people you want to reach. Then name names—a list of, say, the 50 people you really want to engage. Then interview them. What do they think about an issue? How could you work together?”

A conversation strategy like this can often be more effective and more comfortable for funders than a campaign strategy, which may move you beyond your comfort zone too quickly.

Successful engagement takes adaptation. The steps to effective engagement are similar to the small moves made during a chess match. The best chess players modify their provisional plans in response to the other player. Likewise, effective engagement requires funders to make many small moves along the way, shifting and adapting as potential partners establish their positions. It may also call on funders to give up some of their pieces (i.e., their control) to achieve a greater goal.

“In my experience,” says Exponent Philanthropy member Suzanne Hammer of The Pellish Foundation, “funders who succeed in engagement aren’t afraid of hearing no. They don’t take it personally and understand that being flexible and creative is the path to success.”

Engagement Step by Step

So what might the process of engaging the unusual suspects look like? We adapted a checklist developed by Mark Sedway for Exponent Philanthropy’s 2012 National Conference.

What is the issue around which we want to engage others? Why do we care about it, and why should they?

What outcomes do we want to see? Why is engaging others critical?

Whose thinking do we want to influence? What questions can we ask to better understand how they frame the issues and position themselves in the effort toward change?

What are the common points of interest? What small steps can we take to further build trust andmcommonality?

What types of engagement approaches are likely to be successful? What resources are needed and which are we willing to bring to the table? If we invest in these approaches, what may we have to give up?